From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28293 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2012 14:29:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 28282 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jan 2012 14:29:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:29:40 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D35C89471; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:29:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:29:00 -0000 From: Richard Guenther To: gdb@sourceware.org Cc: brobecker@adacore.com Subject: Re: Pending breakpoints on lines that don't exist In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 On Wed, 4 Jan 2012, Richard Guenther wrote: > > [sorry for breaking threading, I'm not subscribed] > > > > Not to me, FWIW. At the very least, we should have asked a different > > question than we ask in the "normal" pending-breakpoint use case. > ... > I kind of like the idea. But in this case, I think it would be > too verbose. Currently, we have: > > (gdb) b foo.c:100 > No line 100 in file "foo.c". > Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) n > > I find that the error message is precise and complete. But I do not > want to remove the option of making the breakpoint pending, because > some users might have, in fact, meant what they were doing. And if > the user made an error, do you think they would not understand what > error they made that triggered the question? > > > OTOH what mostly happens to me is: > > > gdb ./cc1 > GNU gdb (GDB) SUSE (7.3-98.1) > ... > (gdb) b expr.c:10850 > No line 10850 in file "/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/libcpp/expr.c". > > because I meant /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/expr.c! Now > getting the pending breakpoing seems to be even worse. I'd > expect sth like > > (gdb) b expr.c:10850 > No line 10850 in file "/space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/libcpp/expr.c" > Use alternate source file /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk/gcc/expr.c? (y or > [n]) > > it's especially bad that gdb does not recognize > > (gdb) b gcc/expr.c:10850 Oh, and with this gdb 7.3 (Fedora) already does (gdb) b gcc/expr.c:10850 No source file named gcc/expr.c. Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) n Richard.